Talk:Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway

Redirection

I created a disambig page for DCML. The other links there do not seem that notable at all (possibly dead markup language and a disney mailing list) vs. the neuro pathway. Therefore, I suggest redirecting the DCML page to here.--Xris0 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Title needs to be changed

From Posterior column-medial lemniscus pathway to dorsal column-medial lemniscus pathway

The problem is the page is already a re-direct page.

The reason for the move is quite clear. The dorsal column-medial lemniscus pathway is in standard usage in texts such as Grey's Anatomy and most neuroanatomy texts. Mizrahi58 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Proposed merge with Posterior column

It is very confusing to have all these article separated when they can be much more easily presented as parts of the overall tract to which they belong (DCML or PCML). This:

• Benefits readers by ensuring that information isn't needlessly and confusingly divided into multiple articles which have a large amount of overlap
• Benefits content by ensuring greater views and edits on a single page instead of dispersed over many Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done

Support all proposals for all reasons given --Iztwoz (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support "all proposals" per above comments. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Posterior funiculus

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done

Proposed merge with Cuneate fasciculus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest new target to Dorsal column nuclei as included with these (TA).--Iztwoz (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Support the initial proposal rather than the alternative. The Cuneate fasciculus is a (white matter) tract that is a subset of the (white matter) Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, not the (grey matter) Dorsal column nuclei. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggest instead to merge dorsal column nuclei together with their fasciculi since they are all part of the DCML pathway.Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

See my response below. Klbrain (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gracile fasciculus

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest new target to Dorsal column nuclei as included there.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Support the initial proposal rather than the alternative. The Gracile fasciculus is a (white matter) tract that is a subset of the (white matter) Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, not the (grey matter) Dorsal column nuclei. In ends in the gracile nucleus, but isn't part of it (as far as macroscopic anatomy is concerned). Klbrain (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

But it is part of the pathway - the nuclei are located in the medulla and part of the DCLM pathway. ? Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: The Gracile fasciculus, Cuneate fasciculus and the Dorsal column nuclei (consisting of the Gracile nucleus and Cuneate nucleus) are certainly all part of the Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway. So, it would certainly be possible to merge them all into one article. The only thing stopping this is the argument (made implicitly because no-one has proposed it) is that Dorsal column nuclei are independently notable. That same argument doesn't appear to hold for the fasciculi. The question, then, is what is the best target for the fasciculi. The fasciculi are not part of (that is, a subset of) the nuclei, so I don't think that those pages are a better target; rather, I suggest merging them to the broader topic, the Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, of which the fasciculi are a part. Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Klbrain, I agree with your reasoning though since the dorsal column nuclei page includes them how about merging there and linking to these from the DCML page.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Second thoughts - they could probably merge better here. Many thanks.Iztwoz (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: I notice that with this edit you included the unreferenced claim that the dorsal column nuclei also include their tracts. My anatomy is a bit rusty, but this doesn't seem at all obvious: somata versus axons; grey versus white. Other than that statement, I don't think that the dorsal column nuclei page includes them (it does properly link to the fasciculi pages), and believe that the more straightforward merge proposed by Tom (LT) is a better solution. Klbrain (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Re the merge proposal - that is what I supported in last post. Re the unsourced info - I must have come across this at least once though it may have been an unsourced edit on another page - I shall have another check sometime. (there is no way that I concocted it). Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mgasparin: I'm struggling with the merge close conclusion. The views of the 3 editors as I read them are:

• Tom proposed merging the fasciculi into Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway
• Iztwoz proposed the alternative target of merging fasciculi into their respective nuclei
• Klbrain supported TomLT's original proposal

I can't therefore follow the conclusion from this that proposal to merge the fasciculi in to their respective nuclei does have consensus support. The result would also be that the columns and fasciculi would direct to different pages, which seems odd. Reconsider? As I'm involved, I can't really change the conclusion myself. Klbrain (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit made on the 26th Aug seems not to have been very clear - i did say (or mean to say) that i supported merging the items as originally proposed by Tom - whether the dorsal column nuclei are later included on the page is another question. So really there is unanimous consensus for the merges.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Iztwoz Yes, I understand your concerns. I had a lot of difficulty in figuring out who supported/opposed what as the discussions really aren't organized in an easy to read way. By the way, thank you for summarizing the discussion above, it really helps. I'll change my close to reflect that. Mgasparin (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Posterior column–medial lemniscus pathway → Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway – DCML (when spelled out in full) is by far the more common name in discourse, literature ([1]), textbooks. We should be using that here. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Support for this as more relevant to dorsal root usage etc. BUT the new name proposed ought to include 'pathway'.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, good point. Have updated the above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of acronym

Although I don't usually like the use of acronyms, I think that the use of the acronym for this pathway (DCML or PCML) may actually improve readability. Thoughts of other editors? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean as the page name?--Iztwoz (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean - within the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be already in use ?--Iztwoz (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Have removed – Consider: Corona radiata --> 3 1 2 Brodmann. – without anything further it means nothing. ?--Iztwoz (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References